Help
Options
Didn't know it?
click below
click below
Knew it?
click below
click below
Don't Know
Remaining cards (0)
Know
retry
shuffle
restart
0:00
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Torts Cases
Cases in Kaye's Tort Law
| Question | Answer | Rule |
|---|---|---|
| J'Aire Corp v Gregory | Suit against general contractor for damages resulting in delay in completion of construction project at premise where appellee owned restaurant | Rule: When a special relationship exists, Plaintiff may recover for loss of expected economic advantage through negligent performance of K even though parties are not in contractual privity |
| Scibelli v PA Railroad Co | Child tried to jump on train when it was near him in a field. He fell and severely crushed his leg, the train company was not liable | Rule: Playground Doctrine - Amount of use that will bring otherwise private ground within the playground rule must depend to a large extent on the circumstances of each case |
| Roessler v Novak | Radiologist read scans wrong, patient suffered additional injuries because of the radiologist's mistake | Rule: Principal may be held liable for acts of its agents that are within the course and scope of agency |
| Kleeman v Rheingold | Lawyer gave non-delegable duty to process server who missed the deadline. Lawyer was sued for malpractice. Process server was agent of attorney so the attorney was vicariously liable because of the central importance of the task | Rule: employer for independent contractor, not employee/servant, is not liable for negligent acts. Exception when the employer is negligent in selecting, instructing, or supervising; inherently/ especially dangerous work; or specific non-delegable duty |
| Taber v Maine | Rule: Drinking was considered characteristic of employment on the Navy base | |
| Lister v Helsey Hall Ltd | Warden sexually abused schoolboys that were attending boarding school he was employed for | Rule: Scope of employment test - Was the tortfeasor's conduct within the scope of employment to make the employer vicariously liable? Time and place is relevant but may not be conclusive, opportunity of being present at particular premises is not enough |
| Ultramares Corp v Touche (DOC) | Defendant made loans to accountant's (plaintiff's) client after ruling on Plaintiff's financial statements. The clients went bankrupt, the Defendant brought suit against accountant for negligence in financial reporting | Rule: The third party must be in privity with Plaintiff by special relationship to owe a duty of care. Permitting recovery by parties like the Defendant would impose a duty upon accountants that would be enforceable by an indeterminate class |
| Palsgraf v Long Island Railroad Co (DOC) | Man dropped package full of fireworks on train tracks, scales at the other end hit Palsgraf. She sued the Railroad because they owed her a duty of care | Rule: Negligent conduct resulting in injury will lead to liability only if the actor could have reasonably foreseen that the conduct would cause the injury. Zone of Danger test |
| McCain v Florida Power (DOC) | Injury when the machine that the petitioner was operating struck respondent power company's underground electrical cable | Rule: DO NOT MERGE DUTY AND PROXIMATE CAUSE. Duty element of negligence focuses on Defendant's conduct foreseeably creating a broader zone of risk that poses greater threat of harm to others. |
| MacPherson v Buick (DOC) | Plaintiff bought car from dealer that had a defective wheel. The wheel collapsed causing injury. Plaintiff sued original manufacturer of car, not dealer for negligence. Defendant purchased from another manufacturer & failed to inspect wheel | Rule: If product is reasonably expected to dangerous if negligently made and the product is known to be used by those other than the original purchaser in normal course of business, DOC exists |
| Mussivand v David (DOC) | Plaintiff's wife had an affair with the Defendant, the Defendant infected the Plaintiff's wife with an STD. Plaintiff sued Defendant claiming he was negligent for not telling wife about disease | Rule: Person is liable for transmission of an STD to a third party if the third party is the spouse of the person's lover. DOC owed to third party spouse once their spouse knows about the STD |
| Aikens v Debow (DOC) | Motel owner sued because truck driver damaged a bridge that allowed for easier access to his motel. Motel owner was seeking loss income for damages | Rule: An individual who sustains purely economic L from an interruption commerce caused by another's negligence may not recover damages without physical harm to person/property, CR, or SR to compel conclusion that tortfeasor had DOC |
| Curd v Mosaic Fertilizer (DOC) | Mosaic spilled pollutants and hazardous contaminants in Tampa Bay. Fishermen sued because contaminants affected fish/crab and harmed their business | Rule: Licensed commercial fishermen have protected economic expectation in the marine life that qualifies as a property right. Suffered special special harm, diminution or loss of livelihood, which was not suffered by every person who fished the waters |
| Willis v Game Golden Glades (ED) | Woman was mugged after a security guard told her to park in a dark parking lot adjacent to the hotel. A gun pointed at her head and thought she was facing her death. The guard refused to assist her after and she claimed she suffered emotional distress | Rule: Impact Rule - if there is an impact, no matter how slight (mere touching) , there can be recovery for emotional distress injury. If there is no impact the Plaintiff needs to show a physical manifestation of physical injury |
| Ochoa v Superior Court | Child became sick while in a juvenile facility. The child's mother was very distressed/concerned. The mother was forced to leave by employees of the facility and the child received inadequate medical care and passed away | Rule: When there is observation of the Defendant's conduct and the child's injury and contemporaneous awareness of the Plaintiff's conduct or lack thereof causing harm to the child, recovery is permitted. Emotional Distress Secondary Victim Requirements |
| Consolidated Rail Corp v Gottshall | Work crew had to fix defective track on a hot day, under time pressure, and men were discouraged from taking breaks. One of the men collapsed and passed away. Gottshall tried to assist, the dead body was left and the men were told to go back to work | Rule: Proximity of TIME & SPACE between plaintiff and defendant to the extent that there was actual impact without physical harm, or that the plaintiff feared for their owner safety |
| Thing v La Chusa (secondary victim) | Plaintiff's son was struck by a car and injured. They did not witness the accident but arrived on the scene shortly thereafter | Rule: Plaintiff must be present when an injury occurs and be closely related to the injured party to recover damages for a claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress |
| EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (SECONDARY VICTIM) | Defendant must have owed duty of care to primary victim AND plaintiff must have a proximate RELATIONSHIP with primary victim AND plaintiff must have been proximate in TIME & SPACE to primary victim AND plaintiff must have suffered "serious emotional harm" | |
| Potter v Firestone Tire & Rubber Co | Plaintiff sued over fear of developing cancer as a result of exposure to toxic waste the company allegedly permitted to seep into into groundwater | Rule: When a plaintiff can demonstrate a physical injury caused by the defendant's negligence, anxiety specifically due to a reasonable fear of a future harm attribute to the injury may also constitute a proper element of damages |
| Strauss v Belle Realty Co | Plaintiff fell down the stairs in his apartment building after the Defendant's power system created a blackout in most of NYC | Rule: Liability for injuries in a building's common areas should be limited to contractual relationship |
| Tarasoff v Regents of University of California | Plaintiff asserted that physicians at hospital had a duty to warn them of threats to their daughter by patient at hospital. Patient ultimately killed the daughter. | Rule: D owed DOC to all who are foreCably dangered by the patient's act and risks that make the act danger. If avoidance of harm requires D to control act or to warn ab act, liability only imposed if D has a SR to dangerous person or potential victim. |
| Baker v Fenneman | Plaintiff went to Taco Bell, felt sick, fell backward and hit their head. They were knocked unconscious and had multiple seizures, no employee rendered assistance | Rule: There may be a legal obligation to effect rescue of helpless person when one proceeded against is a master or an invitee. TB had a duty and public policy suggests that because as a business that invited invitees it was obligated to provide assistanc |
| Bennet v Stanley (PL) | Five-year old boy trespassed on neighbor's yard, fell into a pond-like pool and drowned. Mother drowned attempting to save him | Rule: Attractive Nuisance Doctrine - Possessor of land is subject to liability for physical harm to children trespassing thereon caused by an artificial condition upon land if five elements are satisfied. (SEE TORTS OUTLINE) |
| Wagner v International Ry (PL) | Plaintiff's cousin was thrown out of the train car, plaintiff went to go look for him after being asked by the conductor to do so, plaintiff lost footing and was injured | Rule: Tortfeasor is liable to all those injured in reasonable rescue attempt but liable if rescue efforts were unreasonable |
| Rowland v Christian | Faucet broke while the plaintiff was using it in the defendant's apartment. The defendant did not warn the plaintiff about it but had told the landlord about the issue | Rule: Guest is reasonably entitled to be warned of any dangerous condition, so hat he may take necessary precautions |
| Bernier v Boston Edison Co | Minor car wreck between two people. The woman hit her face and lost control of the vehicle veering into an electric pole when they fell and struck the Plaintiffs who had left a nearby ice cream parlor. Sued maker of electrical pole for negligence | Rule: A manufacturer is required to anticipate the environment on which its product will be used and must design against reasonably foreseeable risk attending the use in that setting |
| Campbell v Kovich | Plaintiff was struck in the eye by an unknown, unrecovered object. She alleges that it was ejected from lawnmower operated by defendant while mowing her lawn | Rule: Ordinary care of a reasonable person owed to others. No genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the defendant exercised reasonable care in the operation of the lawnmower |
| Appelhans v McFall | Five-year old boy hit a sixty-six year old woman on his bike, she suffered a fractured hip. Sued him and his parents for negligently failing to instruct him on the use of a bike/supervise. | Rule: Tender Years Doctrine - can't contributory N if less than 7, can't recognize and appreciate risk so incapable of N. For N parental supervision the P must show the parents on notice the act was likely to occur and the parents could control the child |
| Connell v Call-A-Cab | Connell called AAA and requested transport. Driver for AAA picked Connell up, transported her to a side road, and sexually assaulted her | Rule: Carrier is liable in such cases where servant's act violates the duty it owes through the servant to the passenger and not upon the idea that the act is incident to the duty within the scope of the servant's employment |
| Bruni v Tatsumi | Plaintiff either personally or through her husband/parents was fully informed of fats concerning each operation to be performed and gave written consent | Rule: Standard of care requires a doctor to do or not do something as other doctors would have reasonably done or not done under the same/similar circumstances regardless of location. Locality rule is outdated, information is widely available. |
| Viner v Sweet (CIF) | Attorney's hired by clients to assist in negotiation of sale of client's business, clients sued for malpractice, they were given incorrect advice and negligently agreed to provisions not in their favor | Rule: C were required to show, but for the malpractice, it was more likely than not that the C would have obtained a more favorable result. Ensuring that damages awarded for the attorney's malpractice actually have been caused by the malpractice |
| Wagon Mound (SOL) | Plaintiff operated a dock, defendant were owners of vessel "Wagon Mound." Vessel was moored 600 feet from plaintiff's wharf when, due to defendant's negligence, the vessel discharged furnace oil causing injury to plaintiff's property when it ignited | Rule: It would be wrong that a man should be held liable for damage unpredictable by a reasonable man because it was "direct" or "natural" |
| Wagon Mound No 2 (SOL) | Plaintiff operated a dock, defendant were owners of vessel "Wagon Mound." Vessel was moored 600 feet from plaintiff's wharf when, due to defendant's negligence, the vessel discharged furnace oil causing injury to plaintiff's property when it ignited | Rule: If a party did nothing to prevent the injury, he is liable for the foreseeable consequences of his actions, even if the consequences are remote . Because the risk of fire was foreseeable the defendant had a duty to prevent the risk |
| Thompson v Kaczinski (SOL) | Defendant took apart trampoline parts and put them in their yard with the intent to dispose of them but did not secure the parts. A thunderstorm displaced the trampoline from the yard to a nearby road caused plaintiff to crash their vehicle. | Rule: Scope of liability refers to risk present in a specific situation. There is liability if it is limited to physical harms that result from risks that make actor's conduct tortious, not whether they were a substantial factor in causing the harm |
| Mitchell v Cedar Rapids Community School District | Mother of special education student sued school for damages the student sustained in after-hours, off-campus sexual assault by another student | Rule: liability is limited to the physical harms that result from the risks that making conduct tortious. If harms risked by tortious conduct include general sort of harm suffered by P, D is subject to liability for plaintiff's harm. |
| Benn v Thomas | Plaintiff had a history of heart disease. Following a vehicular accident, plaintiff passed away six days later | Rule: Eggshell Skull Rule requires that the defendant take the plaintiff as he finds him, even if he must compensate for harm an ordinary person would not have suffered |
| Union Pump Co v Allbrition (SOL) | Gas pump caught on fire, it was the third time that it had done so, and ignited he surrounding area. Plaintiff fell and was injured why going to block the nitrogen purge valve | Rule: Legal cause is no established if the defendants conduct or product does no more than furnish the condition that makes the plaintiff's injury possible. Circumstances surrounding the injuries are too remotely connected |
| Yowell v Piper Aircraft Corp (Harm) | Men killed in crash of Pipe aircraft. Plane sustained mid-air breakup and crashed. All widows of the men brought suit for use and benefit of all persons entitled to recover for wrongful death of their husbands | Rule: Loss of Inheritance - Claimant must prove not only the probability that decedent would have accumulated money and assets but the accumulation would be left by will or inheritance to statutory beneficiaries Mental Anguish Loss of Society |
| Procanik by Procanik v Cillo | Wrongful Life, claim brought by child. Plaintiff was born with multiple birth defects because of mother's German measles that the doctor negligently failed to diagnose. Plaintiff sued for damages of emotional distress, wrongful life | Rule: Infant may recover special damages for extraordinary medical expenses but not damages for ED or for an impaired childhood. No rational way to compare lack of existence with the P&S of the P's impaired existence to recover for ED |
| Mohr v Grantham | Woman had seizure while driving and hit a utility pole. Doctor was supposed to do additional near tests but never did, they prescribed narcotic and discharged her with no discharge instructions. It led to permanent brain damage | Rule: Substantial Factor Test - Requires that the plaintiff prove that the defendant's alleged act or omission was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff's injury, even if injury could have occurred anyway |
| Ravo v Rogatnick | P rendered permanently disabled because of brain damage . P sued D1 and treating D2 for malpractice. D1 failed to acquire medical info and used bad surgery methods. D2 contributed to injuries by misdiagnosing and improperly treating P after birth | Rule: When 2 or more tortfeasors act concurrently/ in concert to produce a 1 injury, they be held joint and severally liable. Not concert/contribute to same wrong, their wrongs are independent and successive so each is responsible for separate injuries |
| Fabre v Marin | Plaintiff injured in accident as passenger when defendant hit her husband's car. Plaintiff enjoined defendant's car insurance company as additional defendant, jury found each 50% at fault | Rule: By discarding J&S liability, legislature intended to curtail fault-free P's ability to recover total of her damages. P's husband and D was 50% at fault, husband can't be party in suit. D cannot be 100% liable, damages were reduced by half |
| Bencivenga v JJAMM | Plaintiff got punched by unknown assaulter at the club and bouncers failed to help | Rule: Liability may not be apportioned to fictitious defendant who is not party to the suit |
| Riley v US | Plaintiff sued US for negligence of USPS mailboxes that obscured her view of traffic. Resulted in a severe vehicle accident and serious injuries | Rule: US is immune from suits unless it consents Two-Part Test Conduct must be discretionary -> judgment or choice Judgment as issue must be of the kind that the discretionary function exception was designed to shield |
| Feres v US | Combined three cases where each claimant was on active duty and sustained injury due to negligence of others in armed forces | Rule: Government is not liable under the FTCA for injuries to service men where the injuries arise out of or are in the course of activity incident to service |
Created by:
jlorraine209
Popular Law sets